The DOI matches its Crossref record; 107 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Steep delay discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis of continuous associations: Delay discounting and addiction
Open accessAbstract
AIMS: To synthesize continuous associations between delayed reward discounting (DRD) and both addiction severity and quantity-frequency (QF); to examine moderators of these relationships; and to investigate publication bias. METHODS: Meta-analysis of published studies examining continuous associations between DRD and addictive behaviors. Published, peer-reviewed studies on addictive behaviors (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, stimulants, opiates and gambling) were identified via PubMed, MEDLINE and PsycInfo. Studies were restricted to DRD measures of monetary gains. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using Pearson's r as the effect size. Publication bias was evaluated using fail-safe N, Begg-Mazumdar and Egger's tests, meta-regression of publication year and effect size and imputation of missing studies. RESULTS: ). Significantly larger effect sizes were observed for studies examining severity compared with QF (P = 0.01), but not between the type of addictive behavior (P = 0.30) or DRD assessment (P = 0.90). Indices of publication bias suggested a modest impact of unpublished findings. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed reward discounting is associated robustly with continuous measures of addiction severity and quantity-frequency. This relation is generally robust across type of addictive behavior and delayed reward discounting assessment modality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Elevated delay discounting has frequently been associated with addiction severity (Amlung et al., 2017).”
From Age-dependent Effects of Tobacco Smoke and Nicotine on Cognition and the Brain: A Systematic Review of the Human and Animal Literature Comparing Adolescents and Adults. (2023) · cites this paper as Amlung et al., 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Delay discounting tasks are generally considered to provide an index of impulsive behaviour (Amlung et al., 2017).”
From Age-dependent Effects of Tobacco Smoke and Nicotine on Cognition and the Brain: A Systematic Review of the Human and Animal Literature Comparing Adolescents and Adults. (2023) · cites this paper as Amlung et al., 2017
In the citing paper
“Steeply discounting delayed rewards is correlated with most substance-use disorders, the severity of these disorders, rates of relapse to drug use, and a host of other maladaptive decisions impacting human health.”
From Changing Delay Discounting and Impulsive Choice: Implications for Addictions, Prevention, and Human Health (2019) · cites this paper as Amlung et al., 2017
In the citing paper
“Consistent with this conceptual analysis, individual differences in how steeply LLRs are discounted robustly correlates with the incidence and severity of problem substance use”
From Changing Delay Discounting and Impulsive Choice: Implications for Addictions, Prevention, and Human Health (2019) · cites this paper as Amlung et al., 2017
In the citing paper
“Another meta-analysis showed that greater delay discounting is associated with more severe addictive behaviors, with comparable effect sizes found across different types of addictive behaviors.191”
From Early life adversity and health-risk behaviors: Proposed psychological and neural mechanisms (2018) · cites this paper as [191]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 1×
“Presence of publication bias was based on consideration of five indices: Rosenthal’s classic fail-safe N [44]; Orwin’s fail-safe N [45]; examination of the funnel plots of sample size and effect size using the two-tailed Begg–Mazumdar test [46] and the one-tailed Egger’s test [47]; and metaregression between publicati…”
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Grant, B. F., Goldstein, R. B., Saha, T. D., Chou, S. P., Jung, J., Zhang, H., Pickering, R. P., Ruan, W. J., Smith, S. M., Huang, B., et al. (2015) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0584 · Cited by 2,556
Stewart, L. A., Clarke, M., Rovers, M., Riley, R. D., Simmonds, M., Stewart, G., & Tierney, J. F. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3656 · Cited by 2,134
A Fail-Safe N for Effect Size in Meta-Analysis
Orwin, R. G. (1983) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164923 · Cited by 2,064 · cited 1×
“Presence of publication bias was based on consideration of five indices: Rosenthal’s classic fail-safe N [44]; Orwin’s fail-safe N [45]; examination of the funnel plots of sample size and effect size using the two-tailed Begg–Mazumdar test [46] and the one-tailed Egger’s test [47]; and metaregression between publicati…”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Mazur, 1987, Quantitative Analyses of Behavior: The Effect of Delay and of Intervening Events on Reinforcement Value, 5, 55
- Tukey, 1958, Bias and confidence in not quite large samples, Ann Math Stat, 29, 614
- Stanger, 2012, Delay discounting predicts adolescent substance abuse treatment outcome, Exp Clin Psychopharmacol, 20, 205, 10.1037/a0026543 · DOI
- Castellanos-Ryan, 2014, Neural and cognitive correlates of the common and specific variance across externalizing problems in young adolescence, Am J Psychiatry, 171, 1310, 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13111499 · DOI
- Ohmura, 2005, Discounting delayed and probabilistic monetary gains and losses by smokers of cigarettes, Psychopharmacology (Berl), 182, 508, 10.1007/s00213-005-0110-8 · DOI
- Petry, 2001, Pathological gamblers, with and without substance use disorders, discount delayed rewards at high rates, J Abnorm Psychol, 110, 482, 10.1037/0021-843X.110.3.482 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Luciana, M. M., Bjork, J. M., Nagel, B. J., Barch, D. M., González, R., Nixon, S. J., & Banich, M. T. (2018) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2018.02.006 · Cited by 554
Uncovering the structure of self-regulation through data-driven ontology discovery
Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Enkavi, A. Z., Li, J. K., MacKinnon, D. P., Marsch, L. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10301-1 · Cited by 509
Delay Discounting as a Transdiagnostic Process in Psychiatric Disorders
Amlung, M. T., Marsden, E., Holshausen, K., Morris, V. L., Patel, H., Vedelago, L., Naish, K. R., Reed, D. D., & McCabe, R. E. (2019) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2102 · Cited by 396
Self-citationImpulsivity in Gambling Disorder and problem gambling: a meta-analysis
Ioannidis, K., Hook, R. W., Wickham, K., Grant, J. E., & Chamberlain, S. R. (2019) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-019-0393-9 · Cited by 306
Early life adversity and health-risk behaviors: Proposed psychological and neural mechanisms
Duffy, K. A., McLaughlin, K. A., & Green, P. A. (2018) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.13928 · Cited by 237
Metadata
- Authors
- Amlung, M., Vedelago, L., Acker, J., Balodis, I., & MacKillop, J.
- Affiliations
- Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research (CA)
- Syracuse VA Medical Center (US)
- Homewood Research Institute (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Amlung, Michael
- Venue
- Addiction
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-09-01
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-62
- ISSN
- 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5148639
- OpenAlex
- W2492643729
- Cited by
- 626
- References
- 107
- Citations by year
- 2026: 57 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 6
- FWCI
- 7.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Addiction (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (P30DA027827)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Keywords
- delay discounting, addictive behavior, addiction severity, impulsivity, alcohol consumption, tobacco use, cannabis use, stimulants, opiates, gambling, publication bias, moderators
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Reward, Severity of Illness Index, Behavior, Addictive, Publication Bias, Delay Discounting
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
